The Justice Department is demanding internal files from dozens of Internet service providers and other technology firms as it seeks to defend a controversial Internet child protection law.

The subpoenas are similar to one given to Google Inc., which waged a partially successful battle over the government’s request for millions of pieces of information about search engine requests and Web site domains.

InformationWeek magazine unearthed subpoenas that show the government also demanded information from at least 34 other companies, including Internet service providers such as Comcast Corp. and EarthLink Inc., security software firms and other technology companies.

The full Information Week story indicates that at least some companies are standing up to this potential invasion of privacy for the sake of attempting to bolster a law already ruled unconstitutional twice:

The documents presented to InformationWeek reveal that some companies did object to the government’s demands. In an E-mail sent to the Department of Justice last July, Fernando Laguarda, an attorney representing Cablevision Systems Corp., characterized some of what the government was asking for as “overly broad, vague, ambitious, and unduly burdensome.”

In a letter sent to the Department of Justice in August, Joseph Serino Jr., an attorney representing Verizon, voiced similar objections. However, he clearly states that his objections are routine and intended to protect the company.

The one exceptional objection he cites has to do with the sensitivity of the information sought. Serino said Verizon Online is concerned that documents might be forwarded to people working for entities hostile to Verizon Online, or that are suing the company, including the Justice Department itself and the American Civil Liberties Union.

As you’d expect, the subpoenas also look at companies that make security software. In its attempted defense of the discredited Child Online Protection Act, Justice wants to prove that software filters don’t cut it when comes to protecting young eyes from things the government thinks they shouldn’t see.

And here’s what the government is asking for from the software companies:

The subpoenas directed at security software companies asked for a substantial amount of information, including any and all documents that fall into 29 separate categories, including the kinds of content filtering products or services offered, the number of customers using those products or services, how users configure their filters, how filters get updated, R&D spending on such products, the methodology used to generate blacklisted or filtered sites, and pretty much any data gathered that relates to the use of filters.

These aren’t necessarily requests that invade privacy — they make sense given that the government wants to prove that a law will do what technology can’t — but some argue they infringe on the rights of businesses to protect their intellectual property, not to mention the harassment factor:

Stephen Ryan, a partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in Washington D.C., considers the scope of the government’s discovery efforts unusual. “I’m not surprised that the Google piece looks like the tip of an iceberg,” he says. “But it is sort of surprising that they’re using their authority this broadly.”

Ryan acknowledges that government subpoenas place undue burdens on companies every day, noting that there are probably scores of attorneys at large ISPs who do nothing but process subpoenas. He suggests that as information technology produces more information, the government will want greater access to that data.

With regard to the financial impact of subpoenas, Ryan notes, “If you look at the Office of Regulatory Affairs at Office of Management and Budget, there’s something called the Paperwork Reduction Act. And there’s supposed to be an evaluation of the burden that a government law or regulation will make on the public. I’ll bet there’s never been a burden analysis of what they’re doing.”